Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why
От | Rob Sargent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c87af9ae-55a1-886c-4b30-81d14de1c975@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why (Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 11/06/2017 01:50 PM, Rob Sargent wrote: > > > On 11/06/2017 01:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com> writes: >>> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout | 0 | default | >>> | | A value of 0 turns off the timeout. | user >> Meh. I think we're barking up the wrong tree anyway: so far as I can >> find, there is no error message reading 'idle transaction timeout' >> in the existing PG sources (and I sure hope no committer would have >> thought that such an ambiguous message text was satisfactory). >> So I think your error is coming from client-side or third-party code. >> What other moving parts have you got in there? >> >> regards, tom lane > The most likely culprit is JOOQ, which I chose as a learning > experience (normally I use ORM tools). But that said, I just ran the > same data into my test env, (postgres 10.0 (real) on centos 6.9, > ubuntu client) and all went swimmingly. It's a sizable payload > (several batches of over 100K items, deserialized from json) and takes > 5 minutes to save. > > I was hoping to blame the virt or the beta. Not a good time to start > doubt JOOQ My bet is that those 'org.postgres' messages came from the jdbc driver. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: